Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party

posted at 3:21 pm on March 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state.

Lots of righties took that as a sign that social conservatism would be a conspicuously low priority for President Daniels. Now here’s Rand Paul last week:

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

Daniels wasn’t calling a truce for electoral reasons, and he wasn’t calling it on behalf of the GOP specifically. Both parties would have no choice but to place social issues on the policy backburner, he argued, because dealing with the national debt before it reached critical mass would consume political energies. (In a sane world, perhaps, but alas, not in this one.) Paul really is making an explicit electoral argument, though. If you want to win, you’d better make room for people who support gay marriage. That’s more radical than Daniels’s position because Daniels’s truce in theory would lift once the country had been set on a more sustainable fiscal course. Paul’s truce wouldn’t. In order to steer the party back towards social conservatism, you’d need to show him that doing so would grow the GOP faster than a more pluralistic approach to social policy would. Good luck convincing a libertarian of that.

True blue social cons like Huckabee and Santorum will have field day with this next year. Social conservatives like Rubio or Ted Cruz, whose political brand is broader-spectrum conservatism and who themselves take a federalist approach to gay marriage, will tread more lightly. Paul’s got some cover on it from the fact that he’s personally pro-life and supports traditional marriage, but then again so was Daniels and that didn’t help him much. I think it all depends on which issues, specifically, he thinks there’s room for disagreement on and how much room there is. Gay marriage isn’t abortion; marijuana legalization isn’t gun rights. As long as Paul holds the line on the party’s truest cultural litmus tests, he’ll probably get some slack on the rest. But that’s what I mean in asking how much room there is: What would it mean to “hold the line”? Would Paul be willing to choose a vice president who supports legalizing gay marriage and marijuana? What about one who’s pro-choice and supports an assault weapons ban? The problem with “truce” statements, especially in the context of making the tent bigger, is that it’s never clear how much bigger the pol in question would be willing to make it. We’ll find out next year.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Social conservatives would be quite happy, thank you, to roll the government *back* from its efforts to control and socially engineer us – to *stop* forcing everyone into something government should be utterly uninvolved in.

Social conservatives aren’t… oh, f*ck it. Not worth another instant of effort.

I like Rand but facts are a stubborn thing. Liberal social policies have huge costs. It’s a good sound bite for politicians to say that they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but that is an impossible position.

RJL on March 14, 2014 at 5:37 PM

It is impossible. Sadly, that’s what the voters want and it’s also what wealthy people who bankroll both parties want.

I’m not sure where Rand is going with this. He’s not just personally pro-life, he’s got a perfect pro-life voting record. So does he want to suppress his own supposed convictions and record in the Senate? Is it just PR? I don’t know.

Ok, so the answer is ‘yes’. Yes, you are high, and completely don’t get it. Got it.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM

10 years ago, I would have completely and aggressively agreed with you. 6 years ago, I would have been more sympathetic to your position than to Another Libertarian’s.

I now understand that statism is detrimental to a free society regardless of whether “your team” is calling the shots.

AL’s notion that “It is better to stick to the Founder’s vision of severely limited government” is correct (other than an improper use of singular possessive, but I digress). I think AL’s version of that is probably different than mine, but either version would be closer to our founding fathers’ vision and better for the country.

I would be considered VERY conservative on most issues. However, the government that has the authority and ability to enforce the conservative position on any given issue under a conservative regime also has the authority and ability to enforce liberal/socialist/whatever positions under a liberal/socialist/whatever regime.

The founders’ ideal of limited government MUST be the preeminent and guiding principle of American political thought. Otherwise, you’re just hoping that the “right” fascists are elected next time.

Using the abortion issue, outlawing all abortions or allowing them in the cases of rape/incest/mother’s life are both recognized, conservative positions

Not with this conservative. If abortion is evil because it in fact is murdering baby (however legal) then who are we to pretend that we can murder some innocent babies but not another?

Don L on March 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM

I agree with you on your position, but saying that the latter position is not a recognized conservative position is to deny reality. I’m not arguing that it is correct, only that it is indeed a conservative position.

If the social cons insist on making social issues the centerpiece of the 2016 campaign, we WILL lose, and it will be their fault.

brentspolemics on March 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM

In each of the last 3 elections where the primary subject was the economy (1992, 2008, and 2012), the GOP lost. I find it amusing when folks like you think that getting away from social issues is a recipe for victory, particularly when George W. Bush made “restoring honor to the White House” a central point of his 2000 campaign, and the “Values Voters” coalition won the day in 2004.

Here is the truth that the GOP and those who want to jettison “social conservatism” never realize:

A large swath of the GOP base (let’s say about 1/3) are social conservatives (i.e., pro-life and anti-gay marriage) but are not necessarily conervative on other issues (i.e., spending, size of gov’t). These are Huckabee type republicans. In fact, their religious beliefs may even tend to drive them left on fiscal issues and immigration.

So, abandoning social conservatism will likely result in those people leaving the GOP in droves.

Now, on the flip side, just how many potential fiscal conservatives are out there who would vote GOP BUT FOR abortion and gay marriage?

I’d put that number at far, far less than the lost social conservatives.

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

And, almost no politician in history who claims to be “socially liberal” but fiscally conservative has remained even remotely true to fiscal conservatism. They all have moved left on those issues.

So, while I am not personally a passionate social conservative, I do look for it in my politicians because I know that if they run on a socially conservative platform, they have (to a larger degree than otherwise) the cojones to stick to fiscal conservatism as well.

The GOP without social conservatism would lose by enormous margins.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Got in on the post late, but monkeytoe got it right. Best comment I’ve read on here in a while.

I’m not sure where Rand is going with this. He’s not just personally pro-life, he’s got a perfect pro-life voting record. So does he want to suppress his own supposed convictions and record in the Senate? Is it just PR? I don’t know.

I don’t think that it is about abortion. I think it is about liberty, young people, and issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalisation on which younger voters are more libertarian leaning. Younger voters are actually more conservative on the issues of abortion and gun control (meaning fewer restrictions) than their older counterparts.

The call for ‘agreeing to disagree’ is an effort to expand the voter pool. As a libertarian, I am to the left of most of you on issues like drug legalisation and SSM, but to the right of many of you on others. For example, not only do I oppose all welfare programmes, I would abolish Social Security and Medicare.

I could NEVER vote for Huckabee or Santorum. I’d either vote Libertarian or stay home. On the other hand, I could vote for Rand, Cruz, or Lee. I could have voted for Rubio before his amnesty betrayal. The same with Paul Ryan, who outraged this naturalised American, who came here legally and went through the proper channels to become a citizen, when he called criminaliens ‘undocumented Americans.’

In each of the last 3 elections where the primary subject was the economy (1992, 2008, and 2012), the GOP lost. I find it amusing when folks like you think that getting away from social issues is a recipe for victory, particularly when George W. Bush made “restoring honor to the White House” a central point of his 2000 campaign, and the “Values Voters” coalition won the day in 2004.

Stoic Patriot on March 14, 2014 at 5:59 PM

In 1992, 2008 and 2012, the GOP ran moderate, milquetoast Republicans who failed to champion the conservative economic argument with anything resembling gusto. In 1992, Ross Perot brought some populist flavor to a message whose spirit resonated with many, many Reagan Democrats (despite the contents of his message being something other than conservative, in many ways). I voted for him. I was young. I wouldn’t today. But plenty of people are the age that I was then. They won’t be giving two flying you-know-whats about social issues.

Ask yourself:

Are social issues the most pressing areas of concern this time around? By that, I mean this: Are we going to die from them at any moment — as opposed to the clear and present danger posed by our economy and debt?

Does the general electorate care that cultural decline is a major contributor to our national debt?

Will they even make the connection when we make it?

Are socially conservative stands on gay marriage or anything else going to win us any votes this time around?

Will bleating on about abortion work for us, opening the doors for the Democrats’ tried-and-true playbook to scare droves of women from the party by painting us as extremists who want them all barefoot and pregnant and out of the workplace and obeying their husbands?

You and I know the left’s rhetoric is BS and fails to accurately portray us. But tell that to the millions of low-fo’s who only pay attention every four years for a couple days.

Yeah, there’s a silent majority out there, somewhere, being all silent and crap. Did they vote for the religious guy in 2012? Did they vote for anyone?

Yeah, there’s a vast sea of masses out there watching Jimmy Fallon and listening to Lady Gaga. They won’t respond to what you’re proposing.

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Tell that to the sizable contingent of fiscally conservatives in my social media networks who think we need to stop losing elections during this critical time — and attribute our losses to social conservatism.

Save your efforts with StoicTyrant. He is on record expressing his support for government cameras in the bedroom and elsewhere to prevent rape, adultery, and child molestation if it could be done without breaking the bank. You see, in his view, you have absolutely no expectation whatsoever of privacy and, of course, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t have anything about which to worry!!!! /

Said it better than I could. Paul knows where his base of support is and he has a good understanding of young conservatives, he isn’t going to get the nomination by running as a strict social-conservative. As someone who would have never voted for his father, I’m increasingly leaning towards Rand in 2016. (Though things can and probably will change over the next two years)

Translation: More contortions from Rand Paul as he tries to keep his father’s supporters behind him while still appealing to the Republican base.

He’s sounding increasingly incoherent, and the incoherence is not done increasing yet.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 14, 2014 at 6:17 PM

What is going on is the libertarianation of the Republican party. The morphing of the republican party into the libertarian party. one by one, some repubs are taking up libertarian positions and we’re not gonna like the end result.

I was 13 in the 1992 election and couldn’t stand that Perot was in the election because he was spoiling it for Bush. I would not have voted for him. Today, I would vote for him with a smile on my face if my only other option was Huckabee (or Jeb, or Christy, or etc.). When it comes to fiscal responsibility, we have PRECIOUS FEW OPTIONS in either party.

The problem with this “agree to disagree” business — like the truce business before it — is that it’s a meaningless sound bite. The Democrats are behind one side of a social issue demanding change, and the GOPe wants to surrender on it just so the issue will go away. Meanwhile, the conservative base says, “no.”

So the answer to the GOPe — and, apparently, to Rand Paul — is to tell their allies it’s not worth fighting about.

And this is where the truce keeps coming up: The squishy moderates that don’t care try to tell their supposed allies not to care either, letting the policies be made by the people who DO care, the pushy, demanding leftist activists.

You would think people who were trying to build a consensus would be saying to their allies, “I will support you because we’re allies, and because you feel like the Democrats are trying to roll over you.”

But instead, it’s “You need to just accept what they’re demanding so we can all work together on only the things that WE care about.”

BTW, you can’t “agree to disagree” when the government picks a side. Government is force. The whole reason the left is pushing for SSM, for example, is to force people who don’t like it to accept it anyway. We’re already finding out what happens to bakers, florists, and photographers who “agree to disagree” on gay and lesbian ‘weddings.’

So, to recap:

• Rand Paul calls on his supposed allies to compromise and cave in to the left
• Rand Paul is trying to appease the hard core libertarians and the conservative base at the same time
• Once the government makes something law, you no longer have the power to “agree to disagree”

Frankly, I don’t see anything in this entire statement from Rand Paul that is better than I would expect from the stereotypical weaselly politician.

Are social issues the most pressing areas of concern this time around? By that, I mean this: Are we going to die from them at any moment — as opposed to the clear and present danger posed by our economy and debt?

brentspolemics on March 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM

There’s certainly over a million babies every year who die from abortion. So yeah, many of them are not about to die at any moment. Many are dying at this very moment.

The economy and the debt are actually more distant. We’re projected to default on our debt years from now. While I agree that that’s nothing to sneeze at, it’s hard to get folks riled up about a balance sheet.

Does the general electorate care that cultural decline is a major contributor to our national debt?

I think the electorate cares more about cultural decline than it cares about the national debt.

Will they even make the connection when we make it?

No, because they view the issues as largely separate. And I think they’re largely right on that point. The major drivers of our debt are Social Security and Medicare. Neither of these is driven by cultural decline, but by the need for an exponentially-growing population base to sustain them. Other programs like TANF or SNAP have more of a cultural component to them and why people use them. But when it comes to the 2 programs that actually drive our debt, people get old regardless of culture.

Are socially conservative stands on gay marriage or anything else going to win us any votes this time around?

Will bleating on about abortion work for us, opening the doors for the Democrats’ tried-and-true playbook to scare droves of women from the party by painting us as extremists who want them all barefoot and pregnant and out of the workplace and obeying their husbands?

You and I know the left’s rhetoric is BS and fails to accurately portray us. But tell that to the millions of low-fo’s who only pay attention every four years for a couple days.

It’ll get you my vote, which the GOP didn’t get last time (I voted third party due to my disgust). And maybe we won’t lose voters in droves if we actually fight back on social issues (or even better, go on the offensive and paint the Dems as the party of baby butchers). Otherwise we’re just begging to let the other side define us.

Yeah, there’s a silent majority out there, somewhere, being all silent and crap. Did they vote for the religious guy in 2012? Did they vote for anyone?

Yeah, there’s a vast sea of masses out there watching Jimmy Fallon and listening to Lady Gaga. They won’t respond to what you’re proposing.

brentspolemics on March 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Again, I knew Romney’s background as a Roe-v-Wade-embracing, gay-rights supporting governor. I never thought he would follow through on anything for us social conservatives, and I was disgusted by his remarks on the 47%. That’s why I voted third party. The remainder of my family did stay home because they simply didn’t see the point (I thought it was important to at least register my disapproval).

The Jimmy Fallon, Lady Gaga types are typically one of the following three: non-voters, Democrats, or low-information voters. You won’t get the first two, and the last group is more motivated by whatever is the issue du jour and who can strike the right, feel-good tone. If you can inspire them with a sense of righteousness and heroism, you can win them but it does require striking at the right moment with the right approach.

I like Paul. He is my second or third choice for President. His foreign policy position doesn’t bother me too much yet. But these comments did. He needs to clarify better what the freak he is talking about.

Save your efforts with StoicTyrant. He is on record expressing his support for government cameras in the bedroom and elsewhere to prevent rape, adultery, and child molestation if it could be done without breaking the bank. You see, in his view, you have absolutely no expectation whatsoever of privacy and, of course, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t have anything about which to worry!!!! /

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Actually, without breaking the bank, being exceedingly disruptive, and most of all, while actually being effective. I am certainly willing to refute the idea of a right to privacy in the abstract from government surveillance, and I happen to think that the 4th amendment is nowhere near as broad as you want it. I applaud the arrest of Ariel Castro, and recognize that many crimes including rape, prostitution, and pedophilia occur in the bedroom.

But hey, Woody Allen, Michael Jackson, and Roman Polanski thank you for your support in respecting their privacy.

Rand Paul is trying to appease the hard core libertarians and the conservative base at the same time

Right you are. Historically, minor political parties have advanced certain issues that the major parties pick up. But they have never tried to re-make their respective parties into the minor parties. If you agree with libertarian philosophy than you need to vote libertarian. They are the only minor party to have a presidential candidate on the ballot in nearly every state.

I disagree. You and I agree on most issues. We can ‘agree to disagree’ on those that we do not and work together to defeat the Left or I can vote Libertarian or stay home. In other words, it is up to you. Do you want me? Must I adopt the socon positions?

I am not demanding anyone adopt my positions and neither is Rand Paul. He and I don’t agree on every issue, including those of the social nature, but we are closer in agreement than I am with anyone on the Left. I would rather be in the tent with you and him than out in the cold or, heaven forbid, anywhere near Dora da Explora Jackson-Lee, Maerose Pelosi, and Tippin’ Guam Johnson.

Daniel’s was all about priorities.Paul is about equivalence.Principles don’t matter, only winning does.At least that would apply to social conservatives.I didn’t hear Paul call for a big enough tent to keep neocons in the party.Is it only social conservatives that need to surrender their principles?By extrapolation,should there even be a party platform?Should we simply be all things to all people and offer a plethora of choices?

I can understand running a campaign based on a strategy of prioritization.I would have supported Mitch Daniels had he been the nominee.But to be told my principles don’t or shouldn’t matter?That I should vote Republican only because-heck is there a reason left? No! Clearly the Republican Party is not for me.Mitch McConnell wants me crushed and Rand Paul wants me to surrender?Sorry Rand.You will never get my vote!

I know a lot of people who are traditionalists who are just deciding they have a better chance of protecting and preserving traditional values if they focus on local/state politics and simply let national politics fall by the wayside.

There really isn’t much of anyone at the national level who is willing to act as champion for traditionalists. No one standing up and saying that traditional values do play a positive role in our society and this is something that shouldn’t just be cast aside as being worthless.

If that is what the Republican party is striving to achieve, to alienate these people, then I’d say they’re well on their way to achieving that goal.

It’s frustrating. We need them to stay proactive and it’s just not trending that way at all right now.

Again, I knew Romney’s background as a Roe-v-Wade-embracing, gay-rights supporting governor. I never thought he would follow through on anything for us social conservatives, and I was disgusted by his remarks on the 47%. That’s why I voted third party. The remainder of my family did stay home because they simply didn’t see the point (I thought it was important to at least register my disapproval).

Stoic Patriot on March 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM

So now that we have four more years of BHO, do they see the point yet? Was it worth registering your disapproval?

Can we learn to distinguish between our opponents and our enemies?

A coalition made of mutual respect does not mean social conservatives have to abandon our principles. No one has to sit down and shut up. It just means let’s both sides save our ammo for the Dems who are our true enemies. We must take back the Senate this November.

Actually, I have long held the position that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. In fact, the government’s role is a relatively recent development. In England, for example, the first marriage law was not enacted until 1753 (Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act) and was passed only to prohibit so-called ‘Fleet marriages’ and require marriages take place at CofE sites. Yet, even this law did not apply to everyone. Jews, Roma, Puritans, the Royal family, and others were exempted. In the United States, there were places where marriage licences were not required and records were maintained by religious institutions instead as recently as the 1920s.

Instead of the government being involved in marriage, which has traditionally been a religious institution, it should referee contractual relationships. Adults can enter into a contractual relationship that spells out exactly how they wish to live, work, deal with property, children, assets, obligations, health, death, etc.

Had opponents of SSM taken this approach years ago, the likelihood that we would have the current conflict of rights would have been dramatically minimised.

I read that article. I note they admit they have no idea what the effects of the abdication of authority might be. Prudence should demand that they don’t do it, if that’s the case. Deliberately degrading the nation seems to be the order of the day.

I also saw your response to me on the Malaysia flight article yesterday. I agree with you on all points.

So now that we have four more years of BHO, do they see the point yet? Was it worth registering your disapproval?

Can we learn to distinguish between our opponents and our enemies?

A coalition made of mutual respect does not mean social conservatives have to abandon our principles. No one has to sit down and shut up. It just means let’s both sides save our ammo for the Dems who are our true enemies. We must take back the Senate this November.

ncinca on March 14, 2014 at 7:04 PM

I don’t regret my vote whatsoever. I still think Romney would be completely on-board with gay marriage. I still think that he’d appoint more Souters to SCOTUS. I still think that he wouldn’t do a damn thing to get rid of Obamacare, which is basically a Romneycare clone. And I think he’d be the Chamber of Commerce’s wet dream, an organization which in addition to supporting many of the socially liberal initiatives I oppose, I also think is decidedly against the welfare of American workers and America as a whole so long as it profits them.

So do I regret my vote? Not one bit. My only regret is that Romney was the GOP nominee.

Calling for unity only works when you can agree on a unity agenda. Otherwise fighting the Democrats just gets you Arlen Specter Republicans who sell you out anyway, resulting in no ultimate difference.

The problem is that solibs in the GOP always blame the party’s failures on that socon millstone around those precious libertarian necks that wold just be elected if it weren’t for the association with such riff-raff. And there isn’t one bit of evidence to back up the sentiment. The GOP ran two moderates in a row, neither of whom was exactly a socon powerhouse. And they both lost.

No one has to sit down and shut up. It just means let’s both sides save our ammo for the Dems who are our true enemies. We must take back the Senate this November.

ncinca on March 14, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Of course socons have to sit down and shut up. So how have socons been using ammo? The only ones I hear bleating constantly are solibs with their “it’s a losing issue!!!!” mantra. A poll can say that nearly 60% of the country is coming around to the pro-life position and the solibs go on with the same “you’d better not breathe a WORD about abortion” crap. A poll shows 51% support SSM and it’s “you’re swimming against the tide of history!!!”

State recognition of marriage has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It is about maleness and femaleness, testosterone vs. progesterone and estrogen. Most conservatives concede economic benefits to cohabitating homosexuals. Just don’t call it something that will blur the lines between male and female. Lysenko championed politically correct biology in the Soviet Union. This is no different.

Ultimately the difference would’ve been going over the cliff at 50 mph as opposed to 90 mph. That’s it. The destination would’ve been exactly the same. Romney was a big-government Northeast “moderate”.

You know, before the Supreme Court and Federal Government got involved, this wasn’t an issue. Since marriage is not a enumerated power, and abortion is not an enumerated power, it was left to the states. I’m a Christian who is pro life and I am married, so I have traditional beliefs. That being said. Why would it be an issue that the President should decide? I know the President has to enforce DOMA, but really? One issue Santorum didn’t win the primary because he was all in for social control. But Paul on the other hand, is defending the constitution. I don’t agree with his amnesty and isolationism stances, but I agree with him on this issue

Tell that to the sizable contingent of fiscally conservatives in my social media networks who think we need to stop losing elections during this critical time — and attribute our losses to social conservatism.
brentspolemics on March 14, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Oh yes, all the “fiscal conservatives” who voted against Romney because he was going to ban tampons.

You and your friends vote SOLELY on social issues. You are projecting.

What is there no truce ever called for democrats on social issues?? Because they are set in their ways..I won’t call for a truce on abortions or same sex marriage..I will fight till my dying breath to defend innocent babies lives..I will stand on the word of God and support traditional marriage the only marriage…I will not compromise or call for a truce..Is the republican party a party of life or death in abortion?? hmm Mr. Paul?

One can understand why you’ll never win another presidential election with that attitude.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 7:38 PM

I am not sure… You are the one saying they will not let you into their club. I am just telling you that it is not insane not to do so if they see you as someone who not only does not hold their values but will work from within to undermine those values.

This is why I have such a big issue with places like CPAC letting the gays through the door for example. It gives them the ability to subvert our values. It was not long before suddenly people within our own party were attacking us for our long held and conservative views on the subject.

He’s not saying the test for candidates has to go, but the test as to who votes with us.

It’s a reference to what happened at CPAC and how possible voters are being pushed out.

In the larger sense, he’s right, but yeah, it’s also self-serving. The creation of segments within the GOP means candidates cannot play to one group and right now, Paul is the only one with crossover appeal.

What he needs to answer is what do we do about the power brokers who are trying to commandeer the party and turn it into the haven for Cheapskate Progs?

I want Rand to clarify his stance on ohso wonderful people like Paul Singer, who would toss the base out and sacrifice every election in the process, just to make his gay son happy.

Or the Koch’s for that matter. They’re Rand’s buddies and have zero socon positions. When they decide to financially champeen prog issues, what are we to do?

If Rand looks like he’s standing up to the base in favor of the money players, he’s done.

If you think that I am an enemy, then that is your loss. I am not demanding to be part of the club, but you should want me to be. You should want more voters rather than less.

Unlike some, I do not demand anyone agree with me or adopt my positions. I do not care if people agree or ‘like’ me.

I am a rabid defender of the Constitution and the individual, an extremist when it comes to limited government and fiscal matters, and laissez-faire on many social issues. I might support SSM, but that doesn’t mean that I attend gay pride parades, ‘get’ homosexuality anymore than I ‘get’ what some of my heterosexual friends see in their partners, and if anyone – gay or straight – is looking to me for affirmation, then they’d be better off getting a kitten or something. I’m not the affirming kind or warm and fuzzy kind of person. On the other hand, if 2 guys want to have sex in the privacy of their bedroom, what do I care?

As long as adults are involved and they are not harmed without their consent, I don’t care what they do with their bodies or what they ingest. This philosophy does not apply to anything involving children and, most certainly, does not apply to the unborn, who are the most innocent.

I don’t demand that you agree with any of my beliefs or positions. I do ask that, if you want me to vote with you, that you agree to disagree with me on the few areas where there are disagreements. If that is too much to ask, then I imagine that neither of us will see our candidates elected.

Save your efforts with StoicTyrant. He is on record expressing his support for government cameras in the bedroom and elsewhere to prevent rape, adultery, and child molestation if it could be done without breaking the bank.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Oh, come on! Nobody is gullible enough to think that the government could wield that kind of invasive power responsibly and without abus…

Actually, without breaking the bank, being exceedingly disruptive, and most of all, while actually being effective. I am certainly willing to refute the idea of a right to privacy in the abstract from government surveillance, and I happen to think that the 4th amendment is nowhere near as broad as you want it.

I do want more voters. Voters that will not vote into power people who will subvert my will while in office.

If you advocate for special privileges for gays or for politicians that does. If you advocate for giving atheists power to push out of the public sphere that which belongs in the public sphere, religion, or politicians who do. If either of those are the case, then no we do not need your vote. Your vote is in effect meant to bring the two parties towards one goal, that of the regressives. Thus you are not a unifying empowering force, but an undermining destructive force.

I don’t know… as the left succeeds in murdering higher and higher percentages of their children, demographically the future belongs to more devout Christians, Mormons, Muslims and Latinos that don’t buy into the infanticide thing. I don’t think Conservatives really have to cave into depravity. And it doesn’t matter for electoral politics anyway. Does anybody think the Left is going to let conservatives off the hook and talk about Obamacare? No, they’ll do “gotcha” interviews, like they always do, and ask questions about traditional marriage, evolution and climate change . To make the Left (and their media enablers happy) a Conservative would have to renounce anything to do with God, their religion, and embrace global warming. So screw that, how bout we not play the Left’s game on the Left’s terms?

I don’t know… as the left succeeds in murdering higher and higher percentages of their children, demographically the future belongs to more devout Christians, Mormons, Muslims and Latinos that don’t buy into the infanticide thing.

John_G on March 14, 2014 at 8:26 PM

That is the logical outcome if everything else is equal.

Unfortunately, the left has firm control of our schools from preschool through graduate school, control of our courts, control of our news media, control of our entertainment, and control of our big corporations.

With those severe disadvantages, the children of conservative parents will be–with some degree of certainty–indoctrinated by leftist ideals at some point.

I agree that we should not play their game on their terms, but we also must find a way to neutralize or take back those entities that have been compromised by leftist ideology.

BTW, you can’t “agree to disagree” when the government picks a side. Government is force. The whole reason the left is pushing for SSM, for example, is to force people who don’t like it to accept it anyway. We’re already finding out what happens to bakers, florists, and photographers who “agree to disagree” on gay and lesbian ‘weddings.’

I totally agree with “There goes the neighborhood”. There cannot be any truce with government taking away freedom of speech and religion. The lefties will never vote for anyone with an R behind their name anyway.

Paul seems to change his position according to whomever he thinks is listening. I understand he’s a libertarian on most things, but we don’t need a libertarian as number one on the ticket, he can be VP and bring his voting group along if he wishes. I am for ted Cruz at least I know where he stands and he isn’t changing or “nuancing” based on venue.

If you advocate for special privileges for gays or for politicians that does.

I don’t. In fact, I don’t believe a baker, photographer, or caterer should have to participate in a gay wedding anymore than Sylvia’s in Harlem should have to accommodate a Neo-Nazi wedding or a Holocaust survivor should have to bake a cake for Adolf Hitler Campbell or Joycelyn AryanNation Campbell.

Special privileges for politicians? Shirley you jest, surely! I loathe bloody politicians. I want term limits, a ban on insider trading, more transparency, draconian laws for corruption, the end of special groups like the Congressional Black Caucus.

If you advocate for giving atheists power to push out of the public sphere that which belongs in the public sphere, religion, or politicians who do.

Absolutely not. That is not what the Founders intended.

The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause only prohibits the establishment of a national church. Massachusetts had a state church and religion until 1833.

While the phrase was contained in some of the letters of Madison and Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) and in Treaty of Tripoli’s Article 11 (it is not in the Arabic version of the treaty), the very first mention of a ‘wall of separation’ occurred in Reynolds v United States, 98 U.S. 145 in 1878. It wasn’t mentioned again until a line of cases beginning in 1947 with Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, and much of the impetus of the reasoning in that case was Justice Hugo Black’s (a former member of the KKK) hatred of the Catholic Church, as confirmed by his papers and his own son.

In Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), the Supreme Court declared that Pennsylvania was founded as a ‘Christian nation.’ The Court said:

‘If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.’

Just because I am an atheist doesn’t mean that I hate religion, people of faith, or expect everyone else to abide by my choices. I am not offended by crosses or Stars of David on public property.

The Constitution doesn’t protect our feelings. None of us has a right not to be offended and, quite frankly, I am exhausted by and fed up with the Perpetual Victims’ Grievance Committee and Political Correctness. At times, I find myself going out of my way to be particularly irreverent and insulting just to get under the skin.

If either of those are the case, then no we do not need your vote. Your vote is in effect meant to bring the two parties towards one goal, that of the regressives. Thus you are not a unifying empowering force, but an undermining destructive force.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM

There isn’t a regressive or ‘Progressive’ bone in my body. Do not mistake my ‘I just do not care’ position for the ‘I care very much and will force you to care very much, too’ position of the Left.

If no children were ever involved, adult sexual relationships simply wouldn’t be any of the state’s business. What we now call marriage would be nothing more than a government registry of friendships. If that’s all there were to marriage, privatizing it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if there were literally nothing more to marriage than a government registry of friendships, we would not observe an institution like marriage in every known society.

Perhaps libertarians might concede that marriage attaches children to their natural biological parents. They might even agree that this is a fine and necessary thing—and then try to imagine that the institution now known as marriage could be replaced by private agreements among prospective parents. I will argue later that this policy will inflict serious injustices on children. For now, I want to show that it is an illusion to think that these contracts can dispense with any and all state involvement.

Disputes that arise between the contracting parties must be resolved by an overarching legal authority. Let’s face it: that overarching legal authority always will be some agency of the government. “Getting the government out of the marriage business” amounts to refusing to define marriage on the front end. But the state will end up being involved in defining what counts as a valid marriage or parenting contract, on the back end, as it resolves disputes. We cannot escape this kind of state involvement.

That’s a really good point. Just because I don’t care about something doesn’t mean I endorse it. What a strange thought, but entirely understandable in the context of the climate of fear that people live in today where their strongly held feelings are being outlawed.

That’s the main issue to me: People are reacting to the recent economic scarcity they way they always do; by creating tribal labels and lashing out with fear and suspicion at anyone perceived to be outside their group. This is being harnessed in the usual ways by politicians and other power hungry lowlifes.

Instead of being personally religious, an individual is part of a group. The personal has become political and you must be a “So Con”. This is all in the finest Marxist tradition of sorting people into groups to effect change.

Fear is used to manipulate people. Maybe it would be productive to find ways to ratchet down the level of fear so people can see more clearly.

If that is the case, I do not see why anyone would have a problem with you joining them.

For me at the moment my hill to die on is immigration. Since we find ourselves in such need of voters for conservative causes, that means we cannot give the democrats millions of illegal aliens to vote for their causes.

I have no problem with gays voting for my causes and candidates. But i do have a problem with them making the qualification of that vote my surrender on gay issues.

I have no problem with people who have abortions voting for my causes and candidates. But if it is at the cost of surrendering on abortion, then there is a problem.

Now, when it is a few votes and people are not subverting our candidates and replacing them with Democrat light it is all to the good as conservatism gains.

But here is where it becomes a problem. When it is a small group that is loud and obnoxious and starts to subvert our candidates with ones that fit their goals instead. You know, kind of like the last two presidential primaries, I got a problem with the whole, but we are not your enemy.

Just look at this thread for a bit of the reasoning here. The loud obnoxious crew spends their time destroying conservatives and supporting McCain & Romney for instance. We know that in the general when they lose primaries they just go vote democrat, but when they win primaries they demand we shut the f^ck up, sit the hell down and vote for their flawed candidate whether or not in the end said flawed candidate in office will work even more steadfastly than George W Bush to destroy the brand name of the conservative party.

The state is involved with disputes involving custody and child support whether there is a marriage or not. Furthermore, I have personally drafted prenuptial agreements that covered custodial and support terms that were agreed to and later upheld. As long as they comply with state law and do not violate public policy, these agreements, which can also be entered into at anytime post-birth will be considered valid.

I’m not an attorney as you are, but I do think that there would in fact be the back door de facto defining of marriage and parenting. Right now those laws and custody disputes have been based on marriage between a man and a woman. If that becomes unmoored, then I think a lot of things would be up for grabs.

People were scared by any number of economic and political catastrophes. Energy rates were through the roof, as were mortgage rates. The international might of the US seemed to be on the decline.

In the face of that, Reagan launched a positive, proactive campaign and proclaimed that the US was not in decline. There would be morning in America. It was more hopeful than anything else at the time, and people responded to that hope with votes.

I think that I have made myself quite clear on the subject of amnesty. As a naturalised American, who came here legally, bade my time, spent a great deal of money, and was honoured to be ‘admitted to this particular club,’ I am most offended by the notion of amnesty and find the language like that used by Paul Ryan – he called criminaliens ‘undocumented AMERICANS – odious and unforgettable. Until I took my oath, I was neither referred to as an ‘undocumented American’ nor considered myself one. Of course, I didn’t sneak into the country or overstay my visa.

I appreciate your information on yourself. You do not have to justify yourself to me. I am not part of the tribe you are trying to join. I left it on the nomination of one Willard Mitt Romney in 2012 for the office of president.
I was just trying to argue that groups have many reasons, legitimate ones, to be exclusive.